The cost of dying

I wrote last week about the sickening, almost surreally offensive attitude of the liberal chattering classes to our armed forces: "Bring the boys home!", as though these skilled, dedicated young professionals were silly, confused children to be led by the hand (or nose) away from a danger they could ill comprehend. And this from people who have never done anything more dangerous than fiddle their expenses!

But now it transpires that our soldiers truly are being shot by both sides: the patronising ninnies who would prevent them from going to war at all, and the soulless penny-pinchers who think that soldiers matter only when they're fighting. By the way, for the easily excited appeasers among you, still desperately looking for an anti-war toehold after you've been made to look so foolish, you can put away your Friends Forever stationery because the following isn't in any way an argument against having an army, and one that actually fights, any more than my saying that the firefighters aren't treated or paid properly would mean that I was against our having a fire service. On the contrary, it is because both our armed services and firefighters are so important to this country's wellbeing that they deserve to live like kings. Or at least journalists.

Under the slogan "Calling time on corporate crime", the GMB's excellent annual Workers' Memorial Day, on Monday, highlights the government's promise to take corporate killing seriously and to impose clear safety duties on company directors - a promise that has not so far materialised, even after five years. Still, every year, dozens of companies literally get away with murder, which seems in some strange way to be OK, so long as it happens in the workplace. I would suggest that you write to your MP, to the minister for health and safety at work, Nick Brown, to David Blunkett and to El Tone himself about this broken promise - and while you're at it, have a word about Our Boys, too, and what happens after they are killed in the course of their work.

You may have read about Lianne Seymour, the widow of the commando Ian Seymour killed at the start of the war. The ministry of defence demanded the return of an "overpaid" £400 of her dead husband's wages, and told her she had months to vacate the house where she lives with her three-year-old son - just days after her husband was buried with full military honours. When the newspapers got hold of this obscenity, the MoD was quick to write off the letter as "an oversight". But, sadly, too many such examples of such shoddy behaviour towards our armed forces by government exist to make this a credible excuse.

Why has no bright spark at the MoD, Home Office or Treasury ever thought of following America's example and waiving income tax on the pay of those engaged in action? It's not because Our Boys are less good at what they do than the US armed forces. The US Treasury says of this practice, "It's the least we can do." Such a tax break during the Iraq campaign would have cost around £50m - less than Mr Brown spent last year on hotlines explaining the tax credit system, just over a third of what the government spends annually on advertising to promote its own policies, and surely less than the cost of Lord Irvine having a new bathroom put in.

Why do British soldiers have to pay partially for their food and accommodation while US troops are exempt from all living costs? A British war widow can expect £26,750 if her husband is killed in action; her US equivalent will get £175,000, and double the monthly payments of her British counterpart. When it comes to the "perks" of the job, the gap is so wide as to be obscene: British soldiers get train tickets home three times a year, free sports facilities, prescriptions and dental care; Americans get free healthcare for life, breaks for further education and college fees paid up to £35,000 or college loans up to £46,000. Both get free uniforms but British soldiers often buy their own equipment, claiming that standard issue is rubbish. If they've had enough after all this, a US soldier can serve a minimum of two years; a Brit must do four.

It gets worse. Currently, those of our citizens killed by exposure to asbestos - like my father - number around 3,000 a year, which is expected to rise to 10,000 by 2010. Among them are those who contracted their fatal diseases whileserving in the armed forces - like the late husband of Mrs Ann Flynn. Mr and Mrs Flynn were married for 46 years, 20 of which he spent in the navy, where, she says, he came into contact with the asbestos that led to his painful and prolonged death from mesothelioma. After nursing him until his death in December 2002, Mrs Flynn was told that, as her husband had spent two decades serving his country, he was classed as a "non-earner". This, grotesquely, means that neither he nor she was or is eligible for any form of compensation.

At a time when an unpopular government has once again seen its stock rise due to the self-sacrifice of its fighting men and women, is it too much to ask that they be treated with the same respect as asbestos victims who only ever went to workto keep themselves and their families, as opposed to defending the lives of strangers both at home and abroad?

God knows that altruistic or socialist gestures are the last thing we expect from the Blairites. But logic, decency and/or patriotism in action - as opposed to simply yapping about it - surely shouldn't be beyond the wit even of this most slippery and self-serving of governments.